'Extreme' Web Sites Under Fire From UK Police 1154
An anonymous reader writes "A conference on electronic crime, taking place in London this week, has thrown up some interesting news. Britain's top hi-tech police officer has demanded a crackdown on Web sites devoted to 'abhorrent' subjects such as cannibalism and necrophilia. What happened to freedom of expression online?"
But... but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But... but... (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, only cannibals eat you, I mean only you eat cannibals, I mean cannibals eat Soviets.......damn, I am fricken confused here. Trolling with cliches used to be so easy.
You Cooked My Date!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You Cooked My Date!!! (Score:5, Funny)
>
>Least we don't have to worry about these two groups banding together to make this legal.
Never underestimate the power of a FOX executive in search of a new reality TV show.
Re:But... but... (Score:4, Funny)
Two cannibals eating the corpse of a clown.
One cannibal looks at the other and asks,
"Hey, this meat taste funny to you?"
--
... and in a related story... (Score:5, Funny)
"Meiwes made a video of the event, which was shown to the court during a closed session. He could be released early for good behaviour."
I assume good behaviour would be that he kept his napkin in his lap next time.
Re:... and in a related story... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure there's possibility of disease probably, and if the body doesn't "belong" to you there may be property rights issues but there isn't anything aprior wrong with it. Maybe if your in some religion that sees the body as somehow sacred you might think it immoral but than your religion probably condems sodomy as well. Immoral is not than same thing as "wrong" as much as any given religion would like us to believe otherwise.
Re:... and in a related story... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:... and in a related story... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:... and in a related story... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:... and in a related story... (Score:5, Informative)
cotodoso
Re:... and in a related story... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think because there is no way to engage in cannibalism without harming another person, and that if a person is willing to accept that harm his competence is in question.
An interesting parallel could be drawn with selling organs. If somebody is awaiting a kidney transplant, and wants to pay you $10,000, why shouldn't you be able to do a deal? This is in a sense a somewhat less extreme version of the same situation: person A "needs" part of person B's body, and person "B" is willing to give it to him in exchange for something (money in this case rather than sick gratification).
I think most people recoil from this beause they recognize that in most cases "B" will not be on equal footing with "A". In the case of organ donation, it's not going to be a fellow country club member, it's going to be some desperately poor or otherwise vulnerable person. I think if organ selling were going on between social peers, then people would by in large not object.
In the case of non-fatal cannibalism, most people would recognize that "B" is likely to be vulnerable, either economically or due to being psychologically disturbed.
Also, cannibalism in general is a behavior most people think best not to encourage, even if there might be marginally allowable cases (hey, were you planning to do anything with that appendix?) In order to overcome the strong taboo against it, a person must to some degree have a psychological compulsion to do it. Compulsions don't respect legal and socal limitats.
Re:... and in a related story... (Score:5, Informative)
Communion in the church is a vestigal remains of this archetypal human behavior; it is the symbolism cut loose from the act. Of course the RC church will say that the host and wine "truly are" the body and blood of Christ, but this doesn't mean they think that the communion wafer turns into meat or that the wine has plasma and red blood cells in it. Indeed they would find this idea revolting. Their position has to be understood in terms of the medieval philosophical doctrine of accidental and esstential properties, which in turn derives from platonic idealism. From a modern positivist standpoint these statements are meaningless. However from a psychological standpoint they are quite potent for the believer.
The act can also be cut loose from the symbolism: e.g. cannibalism in survival situations.
Re:... and in a related story... (Score:4, Informative)
I've heard that there are obscure rules in cannon law to prevent, say, a priest getting really drunk and wandering in front of a bakery and yelling out "THIS IS MY BODY!!!!" and that being a valid transubstantiative event. (Because then you'd have to send in an army of priests to eat all the God in the bakery, you can't just throw it away or anything... :)
Two Words (Score:4, Insightful)
uh... (Score:5, Funny)
Can you post the URL of the 'abhorrent' sites please?
IF it's illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of expression is not freedom from responsibility.
And sadly, it's clearly not freedom from stupidity either.
Re:IF it's illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people argue that everything from violent video games to Harry Potter causes people/children to commit illegal acts. Where do we draw the line, exactly, if not at no censorship at all?
Re:IF it's illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
People who say things like "Harry Potter/GTA/Something incited my kid to kill our hamster" are clutching at straws - that's not the issue, and they know it. If, however, Harry Potter featured a scene where he addressed the camera and told people how to eat hamsters, why it's good fun to do so, and asked us to follow in his footsteps, that would be incitement. That's what needs addressing. It's one thing to claim something incites, but unless it expressly does, it's a matter of opinion.
Re:IF it's illegal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, indeed, we always do anything we are told, don't we. At least, marketeers and politicians *wish* we behaved like that. Let's get real, folks. If someone is in his right mind, no matter how much "incitement" he gets, he will not perform such acts as cannibalism or necrophilia. OTOH, a deranged person needs no incitement to behave in a crazy way. There may be some correlation, of course. It's only natural that a person with cannibalistic or necrophiliac tendencies watch sites with those contents, but that's very far from proving a cause-and-effect relation.
Re:IF it's illegal... (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, a pedophilia UBB. People will talk privatly about screwing kids, give eachother techniques, encouragement, images and art, etc. Even among this class of social scum, there's certain guidelines and problems (even common ones) that are discussed.
Necrophilia and Canniblism, on the other hand, are differnet subjects entirely, but the same rules apply.
The point here is, the goverment wants to discourage these acts because they are wrong, but in order to discourage them they must trample over civil rights and our right to screw ourselves up. They think the sick fucks who like jackin off to art (not pictures of, art) of little kids getting screwed will turn into them actually doing it. It's akin to thinking because millions of geeks jack off to porn, and because when you jack off to porn you're inherently violating the target without their permission, that geeks will rape people. Infact, most geeks use porn as an outlet for sexual tension, therefore relieving the very need for sex, and therefore, rape. All of these are preversions of sexuality, and are bad in some way or another; cannibalism is an antisocial practice as well as one that gets you to kill people(or get yourself killed by being eaten), necrophelia is a practice that gets you to go out and poison your body by screwing dead people, etc. As far as having effects on other unconsenting, this is where 2 groups of people emerge.
There's a difference between the sick fuck who jacks off to art of kids getting screwed, and the sick fuck who goes out and does it or encourages it(financially or otherwise). One is actually hurting someone, the other isn't. In addition, the one who jacks off to art only probably knows it's a bad thing, and some of them probably hate themselves for doing it. Yes, there is some interleave (the artist may be screwing kids for inspiration), but you simply don't persecute people for doing something with themselves that has no effect or a tolerable effect on you.
What's probably going on is someone somewhere decided they felt threatened by the very existance of non-violent necropheliacs or cannibals, and decided they wanted to get rid of it(the religious right, for example, is full of such people). To this, I say good luck. What'll happen is the hardcore people will get more hardcore, and the people who dabble here and there and know it's bad will either stop or be driven underground and you'll never catch them. Then, when your campaign has no effect on the rates or rape, cannibalism, or necrophelia, and costs billions you'll be laughed out of power.
As for videogames, those are a perversion of reality. I play a lot of videogames, but that doesn't mean I'm violent. Again, the same system is applyable. The kids who shoot at cars to see them go by real fast and are idiots, need to be taken care of. Hell, I have fun playing GTA and singing "This is how we speed up traffic, speed up traffic, speed up traffic. This is how we speed up traffic, all day looooooooooooooooooong", but I know going out and doing the same thing in real life is wrong and moreso, I hatemyself for thinking I'd enjoy it, and feel guilty for doing it in the game. The rest of us, the overwhelming majority, don't speed up traffic with an ak47 in real life. Infact it has very little effect on our society as a whole. Now, if we were all running around with guns trying to shoot eachother like in counterstrike, that's a different story entirely. If you want a good read on them, read "On killing". It was written by a former army corperal (I think) and details how videogames and television compliment help to overcome our natural impulse not to kill eachother. That is videogames' true effect besides acting as an escape from reality.
Publishing (Score:5, Interesting)
If you can publish a book or other writing on it then I wouldn't see a problem with it on the net.
Re:Publishing (Score:5, Insightful)
While the same is true of a website, you can also have chatrooms, forums, and that sort of thing. Now your fans with a common interest can meet and communicate with each other. Your website is no longer just a documentary (of whatever quality) but has become a tool to build a community of people interested in cannibalism. Some of these people might have legitimate academic interests, but you have precious little ability to control that.
If you know a guy named FriendA who always talks about murdering blonde girls, and you set him up with FriendB who is a blonde girl, and she gets murdered, I'm pretty sure that your knowledge of FriendA and involvement in their meeting makes you criminally liable in the US and probably any industrialized nation. A website can do this but a book cannot, and I think that's the crux of the case against these extreme sites.
Re:IF it's illegal... (Score:5, Informative)
By tradition, speech isn't regulated, but the Government can and does often quash news stories it finds offensive.
Re:IF it's illegal... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IF it's illegal... (Score:5, Informative)
And if our dear Overlord... erm Home Secretary, has his way, then the government will have the right to suspend any law they choose, including the Human Rights Act. So it will only require an 'Act of the Home Secretary' to suspend freedom of speech.
See BBC News [bbc.co.uk] here [bbc.co.uk], here [bbc.co.uk], and here [bbc.co.uk]
I for one welcome our new Overlord, erm Home Secretary
Re:IF it's illegal... (Score:5, Informative)
And the UK government, whilst being comprised of lying sacks of shit, does not "often quash news stories it finds offensive". Please cite some examples if you disagree.
Just get to it... (Score:5, Funny)
"The Internet is no place for people looking for 'perverse gratification', claims the police officer leading the UK's fight against e-crime."
Apparently they think that anyone who is attracted to corpses should not waste their time online and go straight to the real thing!Re:Just get to it... (Score:3, Insightful)
In what Net-less cave has this guy been living for the past 15 years anyway? The Internet is the place for perverse gratification downloaded straight into the comfort and privacy of your own home, and without the need to offend anyone else I might add. Or perhaps he meant to say "should be" instead of "is". Well, good luck cleaning up the Internet... I hope you brou
Oh well (Score:5, Funny)
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Cannibal.
Then they came for the Necrophiliacs
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Necrophiliacs.
Then they came for the anarchists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade anarchists.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
You got it wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Fist the anarchists killed me,
then the Necophiliacs fucked me,
then the Cannibals eat me,
and there was no one left for them to get...
Freedom of expression is still legislated. (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait wait wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait wait wait (Score:4, Insightful)
Creating a law banning the public discussion of these things on the Internet would be entirely pointless.
We already have ways of ensuring this sort of information is not released to people wishing to do harm: we don't release it publicly.
For those people who are privy to this information (e.g. airport employees, people coordinating state visits, etc.), there are already mechanisms to keep them from further publicising it. If they do so with obvious collaboration with the would-be evildoers, they will be considered accessories to attempted murder (or whatever crime was planned). If not, they will be fired for breach of protocol.
One someone has decided to breach either of these rules, some vague prohibition on discussion of this matter will achieve nothing.
Re:Wait wait wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait wait wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. The US is a democratic republic, not a pure democracy, specifically to *avoid* tyranny of the majority.
The fact is, if the US government attempted to outlaw Islam because the majority wanted it, the constitution wouldn't allow it. This is as it should be. Human rights are inalienable. And whether or not the majority disagrees with a particular belief should have no bearing on this. To believe otherwise is to disregard everything the US was founded on. Or did you forget that the US was founded by people who were trying to escape the exact sort of tyranny you just described?
Re:Wait wait wait (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, there is this thing called democracy...and if the majority says something should be legal or illegal, then so be it! If the majority wanted Islam outlawed, then let it be outlawed. That's not "tyranny", that's "most people want this, so that's what we get."
He didn't say "tyranny", he say "tyranny of the majority", which is something entirely different. It also goes by "mob rule" (or "majority rule" if you are feeling friendly toward it).
Your comments betray your lack of knowledge about our government and the way it was intended to work; all of the points you are belittling are essential components of how our government was designed. I'd recommend reading Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, or at the very least studying some of the problems that cropped up under the Articles of Confederation, which were a whole lot more like mob rule in many places.
The point is that while there is a thing called democracy, there is also a thing called a republic--and that's what we have. The reason we have a republic is precisely because the drafters of the constitution recognized the serious problems with mob rule (not just in an abstract way; again, their recent history had abundant examples).
I don't know where you get off saying the American people want Islam outlawed just because most are Christian. I don't see anything close to a majority here pushing to outlaw Islam.
Clearly, he was exaggerating to make a point about mob rule. Consider the situation this way (call it a thought experiment if you like, but recognize that not that different from how things have worked in many places, throughout history): Another terrorist attack happens, and people get all fired up against Islam. Someone says, "let's kill them all!" People are angry, many of them agree. In fact, enough people are angry and not thinking straight that on the day after the attack 51% of the US is in favor of, say, flattening a few middle-eastern countries. Should we do it? Is it right? Mob rule says yes. A saner form of government recognizes that that's really *not* what people want in that it's not at all in their best interests, and says no.
On one hand, it's still a somewhat exaggerated example; on the other hand it's exaclty how lynchings happen, but on a larger scale. Lynching is mob-rule justice--is that really a form of government you think the US should have?
Re:Freedom of expression is still legislated. (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF? Where are you from? If you go to a building, and blow it up with a bomb, you will get your ass handed to you, both in court, and in jail. If, however, you write a book about bombs, you can go about your happy way, because there is nothing illegal about writing about an act that is illegal.
Writing a book that urges people to blow up buildings with bombs that you explain how to make, is a third issue entirely, and is, again, illegal.
Why is this a surprise? (Score:3, Funny)
There is no "freedom of expression online" (Score:4, Insightful)
b) There is no "Freedom of expression" law in the UK - it's not a right like in the US.
c) Yes, perhaps cracking down on the web-sites might be stupid...
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Law, as it is in the UK: the facts (Score:4, Informative)
OTOH we don't dump several hundred foreigners on offshore islands and deny them rights to trial (we only do it to a few of them and we let them "leave" back to their original country whenever they wish - which is magnanimous of us given some of them will probably be shot if they do that..)
Except in narrow ways the US doesn't have free speech either - "To copy this CD hold down the... " oops , DMCA can't tell you that.
When it comes to porn and violence on websites thats where they UK really does have its head up its (sorry we can't show that
Since the UK state a) believes it knows best and b) believes that extreme porn and violence sites cause real world problems to occur (which may or may not be true - I've not had occasion to read the literature), its then logical that they believe they should be banning/blocking such material just as they take it off people at customs or stop it in the post if they discover it.
Some people argue that the real test of free speech is your practical ability to say something extremely unpopular without retribution - I don't think the US or UK neccessarily score highly here.
What happened? Thats easy. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some psycho killed a teacher and the Daily Mail and Sun needed a good campaign. The pedophiles-infest-the-web thing wasn't working out for them lately so this is a better angle for them to whip up a bit of hysteria. Apparently the necrophiliacs and asphyxia fans infest the Intarweb just as much as the pedophiles and terrorists, much to the surprise of the newspapers and general public.
Hysteria based on uninformed opinions; it's whats for diner!
Perhaps you don't understand (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perhaps you don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Stop bashing people for American Provincialism until you know the score.
Re:Perhaps you don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
dry (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, that British penchant for understatement.
Obvious answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow, I think it is connected to this whole "9/11" thing. Every authoritarian politician is looking at USA's increased fascist tendencies, thinking "If THEY can do it, we can too".
All we (who care) can do is yell. And try to make others care (and yell).
Re:Obvious answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, *all* of the worlds problems *can* be blamed on the US! Nevermind that you insult the British people by basically calling them lap-dogs of the United States.
But to keep on topic, I don't see why this is a terrible thing. To some extent I can see why 'just saying something' isn't illegal, but instigating others to break the law is dangerous. It's not like this is political speech, it's cannibalism!
Chicken Egg Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chicken Egg Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
What is someone puts up a site about paramilitary tactics and then a group of loonies use the
Fight Memes with Memes (Score:4, Interesting)
First, the official involved pretty much grabbed a "this porn causes people to commit crimes" principle out of the air. I'm very dubious that his personal opinion (and one that isn't currently mine) should be weighty enough to merit instituting censorship.
Second, I don't understand why the official can't do the standard thing that I'd like to see pro-censorship advocates do. If the official really thinks that porn of a particular variety is bad, why doesn't he, instead of simply suppressing it, explain his reasoning. If he really is (a) correct in his reasoning and (b) the value systems of others are similar to his own (and I don't think that he should be trying to govern their actions if his are different from the masses), then his explanation should institute a similar opinion in others, and "innoculate" them against the cannibalistic necrophilia meme.
Consider what the official has claimed. Images of porn cause criminality. That's a pretty severe allegation. He's claiming not just correlation (which would seem quite reasonable to me) but causality, which doesn't seem reasonable at all.
If the official really thinks that images are so influential, why do the English have James Bond? He frequently endangers others recklessly, destroys property, ignores military and government authority, etc. I don't see the mass of Britons running out and trying to blow up ships.
Heck, video games are plausibly even more influential -- you take *on the role* of someone. How many FPSes are there where you take out a gun and start shooting people? Most of 'em. You don't follow police rules for requirements on when to shoot, you simply try to end lives, frequently of almost anything that moves. Why aren't there masses of shootings in Britain if violent video games, so apparently much more influential, have failed to convince people to commit murder? Is it because the censors have made the blood in the games green? Is it because images really *don't* affect people to the degree that the British official assumed?
I personally feel that if there's someone with a necrophilia and cannibalism fetish, but that they recognize it and can have said fetish without running out and engaging in it (and there are a hell of a lot of fetishes and fantasies out there that don't get followed up on, like making love to a actress or whatnot), there doesn't seem to be much reason to try to force them underground.
Remember when the British thought that homosexuality was awful, deviant sexual behavior that needed to be corrected? Turing (a major player in *saving* many British asses from death, and a person that is now considered a pretty wronged great man) had his security clearance revoked, was forced to take hormone injections and modify his behavior, and was eventually driven to suicide.
People that buy peppy sports cars cause a *hell* of a lot more deaths each year than people that have cannibalism fetishes. Should peppy sports cars be banned in favor of station wagons? More human lives would be saved, and that's the only really convincing factor that I can think of.
Leave them alone (Score:5, Funny)
Your taboos may vary... (Score:5, Insightful)
In parts of Europe, pro-Nazi material that we're willing to tolerate in the USA is absolutely forbiden, particularly in the places that were invaded during World War II. We can write off Nazis as political loonies, but those places feel terror when the topic is brought up since they saw it first hand.
So, what's taboo here might be fine there, and what's taboo there might be fine here. It's one of the problems that the Internet runs into as the first truely global medium.
Re:Your taboos may vary... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to bring up an old argument -- but what the hell. It's not just about enforcement -- it's about the level of enforcement. It's about spending tax dollars on a "full investigation" to enforce an obselete law. I mean, do you expect sodomy laws to be upheld? In some states, any sexual position other than missionary position between a married couple is illegal. Do you really want those laws to be enforced? How about a "full investigation"? Maybe we should start a special squad in police departments across the country to investigate all rumors of blowjobs. Another, less salacious example are public intoxication laws. Last year, in Fairfax County, VA -- the local cops went into bars, and breathilyzed the patrons. Anyone who blew over the legal DUI limit was arrested for public intoxication. A bar is considered a public place, and these people were blowing over the limit -- so they were arrested on a dumb technicality. Surprised? I sure am -- even though they're enforcing existing regulations. FWIW, these arrests were eventually thrown out, not because the arrests were specifically unlawful, but because the breathilyzer (specifically, the imposed limit) is only legit for testing imparement of a driver. Point is -- sure, it's a regulation, but do you think that police departments have any business enforcing the regulation like this?
The reason we still have bad laws on the books is because no politician wants to have their name on the bill to revoke said laws. It's the same reason we still have bule laws and other really, really dumb laws.
How are the FCC's "decency" regulations obselete? Well, I'll just use a quickie example. The federal decency broadcast regulations don't apply to cable TV networks -- only broadcast. Is there really a big difference in what's allowed to fly on provate cable networks? No. The industry polices itself. However, no politican wants to be known as the senator that removed decency laws. The best way to repeal these laws -- stop enforcing them. Eventually, they'll be repealed
This shuldn't surprise anyone? Frankly, I'm still surprised.
Re:Your taboos may vary... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fuss is about America's cultural inability to deal with sexuality in a constructive way. We use it to sell products, but ban its direct "consumption". We can't teach about birth control, but we don't like abortion or feeding indigent children. The list of contradictions is endless.
The whole matter is made further confused by the fact that millions of people get cable/satellite channels like HBO and see explicit nudity and sexual behavior all the time. You can't possibly tell me that the mere techical detail between broadcast and cable/satellite warrants public outrage.
The biggest problem, however, is that politicans love these issues -- they can be on the "right" side easily and they don't have to work/think/talk about real issues.
Re:Your taboos may vary... (Score:4, Insightful)
> would have sufficed
The reason it's a big deal is because it wasn't a violation of the regs on an 11 PM local channel, it was the Super Bowl halftime show.
> Someday I hope we will be free of this
> religous yoke that is holding us down and
> we can be free.
Hm. Do you think that there are any decency standards that, say, an atheist would/could support?
Re:Your taboos may vary... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you're point? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't literally every person on the planet seen, and/or eaten from a feamle breast at one time in their life? A "breast" is such an arbitrary body part, you may as well be talking about exposed elbows.
you think that there are any decency standards that, say, an atheist would/could support?
Yeah, we have the decency not to force our personal convictions on others, not to start wars based on fairy tales. Atheists are going to have much higher decency standards, than say, a Christian, who worships a story in which women are regularly tortured and killed for disobeying their husbands, and gay people are butchered.
Re:Your taboos may vary... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, she would've forced her personal convictions on her viewers if she started spouting off about religion. As is she showed a boob. I fail to see how a boob (which more than half of the planet have a pair of) is a "personal conviction".
not to start wars based on fairy tales
Just the fact that almost every major war in the history of the planet has ultimately been because of religion.
Morals exist outside of religion. Every religion is a fairy tale, and to base ones morals on a fairy tale is pure stupidity. (for example: I would never steal magic beans because I may run into an angry giant) Of course, it's accepted in our society, that basing ones' morals on "The Bible" makes sense, but basing ones' morals on "Jack and the Beanstalk" is insane. I contend that basing ones morals on ANY fairy tale, including "The Bible" is insane and has no place in civilized soceity. Religion should be left where it belongs: in the Dark Ages.
better hope (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened to freedom of expression online? (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you hadn't noticed different countries have different standards of what's considered "acceptable" behavior:
In the US it's acceptable for the government to kill people who have be convicted of certain crimes if sentenced to death by a court.
In France it's acceptable for a TV ad for shower gel to show a naked woman soaping her breasts.
In Iran it's acceptable for women to be stoned to death for adultery.
So web sites should be no different. If in the UK it's considered unacceptable to have these types of sites then it's OK for the UK to not wanted them hosted there.
It might go against your "First Amendment" nirvana principles, but try this one out in the US to test "your rights online": start a free web site with pictures of child pornography; I think you'll find that that's considered unacceptable in the US.
John.
Re:What happened to freedom of expression online? (Score:3, Funny)
URL???
Better block www.amazon.com.uk (Score:3, Funny)
burp..... [amazon.co.uk]
Most Abhorent Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
I cringed when I read that. Everyday the internet is becoming more of a corperate-controlled broadcast medium.
come on! (Score:3, Insightful)
And not every permutation and combination of human desire *should* be expressed. Yes, we must have the freedom to express political dissent, but, for crying out loud, if there's not going to be self-restraint, then the restraint has to come from somewhere else. And, sure, I'd rather not the govt be doing this, but are you going to put your ps2 controller down to solve the problems of pedophilia and terrorism?
STFU.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
Re:come on! (Score:5, Insightful)
The big bad terrorists are brainwashing folks via necrophilia sites! Doomed! We're all doomed!
This whole argument is ridiculous, telling me I can't express whatever the fuck I want on my own website. This isn't child porn. This is a *fantasy* fulfillment, for people with admittedly deviant tastes.
This issue is moot though...just because some 72 yo gramma in the UK wants someone to "crack down" on a "bad things" to "protect us" from "them", doesn't mean squat. If they want to force a webmaster's ISP to shut him down, he can be back up and running in minutes on a more business savvy and less intrusive host in another country.
Say it with me...there is not, and has never been, any conclusive proof that *viewing* fantasy material forces someone to *act* in mimicry of said material.
I don't see any links here, so how can you say what, exactly, anyone did or did not view? Did Ozzie make that kid kill himself? Do people really have sex with dead people after listening to The Beatles backwards?
Knee-jerk reactionism is not the answer to life's problems, people. Bad things happen, and frequently they happen to good people. This does not mean that you or anyone else has a right to tell me how to live, within a reasonable expectation. I leave you alone, I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
Now excuse me while I go watch an episode of the Sopranos, followed by Sex in the City. I then plan on going out and killing some people, gangland style, followed by some nice hot sex with wealthy, Urban-chic chicks.
What are laws for? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the contents on a website are illegal, then it must be shut down. If the contents on a web site are considered extremely objectional, but if they are not illegal, then the police should simply leave it alone.
This guy may be applauded for trying to make "the Internet a more law-abiding place" as long he remembers it's not for him to define "law-abiding".
Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the site serves a legitimate positive purpose then I'd give it some leeway. Whether you agree or not, there is some argument for pro-gun sites that relates to open source code. Not an extremely strong argument, mind you, but if you know that the SWAT team is using a SIG-551 and you can only muster an MAC-10, maybe you'll stay at home. I'm not even entirely convinced that all pro-gun sites should be protected (and I am generally pro-guns) but at least you can sort of say that there is some type of benefit provided by those sites.
Necrophilia? For God's sake, this is, in my non-professional opinion, not a sexual preference but a symptom of some psychological problems. A necrophilia fan website is not far removed from giving heroin to a junkie - it's what he wants but it's not going to help him.
I like freedom of speech. I don't think that harmful speech that serves no purpose but to facilitate violent crimes needs to be protected. If the cannibalism and necrophilia website fans disagree with me, then let them produce a website that promotes dealing with these fetishes and becoming productive members of society rather than glorify violent crimes - that I would gladly see protected by freedom of speech.
This is completely understandable... (Score:5, Funny)
Sit down some day and actually TALK to a victim of cannibalism or necrophilia.
The things they tell you will change you forever
Cannibalism and Necrophilia *aren't* abhorrent?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, when did the internet become a haven of free speech? It never did and never will do because it's an international medium. Now, I'm a UK citizen and I'm 100% happy for my national laws to be used to shut down such a site.
What is free speech? I live in a democracy that allows me, should I so wish, to *campaign* for the legalisation for necrophilia. I can talk to anyone and everyone about it. If I can convince voters and lawmakers that it's OK, then I get my wish. If not, tough. It would remain illegal and I would have to accept the consequences of that. Free speech allows me to campaign for changes to the law, but it doesn't allow me to flaunt the laws I don't like.
Controversy and dead people (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the guy that accepted to be killed had some psychological/psychiatric probems
What do you define as "problems"? Is it in "differing from the norm"? Do you define Heaven's Gate cult members to have problems, wanting to ride a UFO away? How about Christians, who think that there is an all-powerful Father that they're going to hang out with after they get sideswiped by a Ford Explorer? How about a number of fundamental religious types that refuse modern medical treatment? How about left-handers -- that was considered problematic behavior at one point, and left-handers were frequently forced to modify their behavior in an attempt to train them to act "properly". Did Albert Einstein have "problems" for using bizarre and uncommon ideas? Is it things that might pose a threat to you, or society at large? Is it a subconscious fear that you or a loved one might be killed and eaten, and that you are vaguely suspicious that necrophiliac material promotes necrophiliac behavior? Or, what about actual necrophilia -- in this case, both subjects were willing and interested. Should they be prevented from doing so? Perhaps you're concerned that they are being self-destructive, which is clearly irrational. What about people that pierce themselves or have their tongues surgicially forked -- isn't that behavior self-destructive? How about people that have their children circumcised -- genital mutilation -- is that acceptable, and if so, why? Is Russian roulette "problem" behavior, and if so, why is white water rafting not?
so did the freak that was doing the cannibalism.
You clearly intend "freak" as a perjorative, but yes, he certainly had different desires than the general population.
A sane, modern society would :
Oh, good. This promises controversy.
Help the guy that got killed with his mental problems,
By "help", you mean "bring into line with the general population, because his thoughts deviate unacceptably", right? Remember Turing -- society "helped" him to be straight. It did work to make him more in line with what's considered normal. Of course, it also forced hormone injections and behavior modification on him, and eventually drove him to sucide. Perhaps that isn't a "sane, modern society"? After all, that was a good fifty years ago that the Brits were doing this. Maybe we should look to today, where people that protest male circumcision have problems and people that advocate female circumcision have problems?
Try to fix whatever is wrong with the cannibal's brain/social behavior, and/or handle people like that by removing them from society to prevent harm.
What do you consider harm? Killing someone that wanted to die? Are assisted suicides harmful? Why are sports car dealers legal, when they facilitate people engaging in behavior that risks human lives? Why is Go acceptable? People waste *years* of their life on something that has minimal benefit to society versus other things they could be doing -- Go is clearly self-destructive behavior, but you have no problem with it being played? Why?
Something cannot be considered "consentual" if it can only be consented by someone with serious psychiatric problems. There's a huge difference between most consentual acts, like sex (straight and otherwise), drinking, smoking (tobacco or otherwise) and getting killed by someone for his own pleasure.
Ah, now we get some answers. The sort of people with problems, that need to be helped back into normalcy, are those with "serious psychiatric problems". Or do we? It seems like this is a circular definition.
Among behavior that has been considered abnormal and in need of correction at various times:
* Homosexuality (up to and including this century)
* Polygamy (current US)
* Heresy (Mideval England)
* Left-handedness (US public schools, until sometime in the last hundred years)
* Any
UK != US (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think the K stands for in UK? "States"? There are freedoms similar to those of the United States all over the world, but that similarity doesn't mean squat without a constitution that expressly grants us rights that most of the rest of the world do not have.
The European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 extended free expression to the citizenry of the signing countries, but there are many limitations to that "free" expression:
"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary." (bold added by RP)
Thanks, but I prefer the US Constitution.
RP
I love this quote: (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly! That's what I've been saying for years! The internet isn't for public use, it's just a new source of advertising for businesses and the entertainment industry. Power to the... um, big business!
Next let's burn the encyclopedia and dictionary! I bet there's definitions for cannibalism and necrophilia in there. God forbid anyone educate themselves, ain't be no learnin' on dis hur inturnet.
Jeez, before you know it they'll be taking away the guns and putting video cameras on every street corner.... oh, wait, this is britian, isn't it?
Re:No right to free speech/press (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, the story refers to the UK, not the USA. Things are different there, government and law struture wise.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)
note also that the uk has the highest number of cctv (surveillance cameras) per capita of any country in in europe by a healthy margin.
add to that the fact that the british legal system seems to be based on the concept of writing broad, generalize laws and letting justice be sorted out by selective enforcement. there's a crime in the uk called "going equipped to commit arson" - carrying matches, basically. the theory is it will only be enforced against those who "deserve" p[ro\|er]securtion.
put 'em together and it looks like britain is dedicated less privacy, and broader criminilazation. not very happy.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Basic Difference between British and US governm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
OK as a lawyer please let me put an end to all the crap on this thread.
The British and American legal systems are extremely similar to each other. Not surprising since the US legal system was inherited from the British, and the British hasn't changed much in 300 years (that's why we wear the same gowns and wigs we wore back in 1700).
BOTH are common law systems, meaning that while the legislature makes the laws, the judges interpret them and the judge's interpretation of the law is the law (until it's appealed). As a result both have a legislative tradition of writing very detailed laws. By contrast, the continental 'Roman law' system depends upon broad legal principles, with judges filling in the gaps according to circumstance.
BOTH have the presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (Both ignore this presumption if you're a foreign muslim.)
BOTH require, for guilty verdict in criminal law (and with very few exceptions), the accused to have the intention to commit a crime as well as actually performing the action. For example, if I took your new iPod, but in the honest belief that it was my new iPod, it would not be theft. The idea that it's an offence to carry a box of matches is ridiculous. It's an offence to carry a box of matches if it can be proved that you were on the way to burn down a house. A big difference.
The only real difference is that the US has a written constitution, while the UK relies upon evolved constitutional norms. Both these systems have their strengths and their failings. Up until a couple of years ago I'd have said the UK was doing better but now the current British government appears to have decided to flush our constitution down the toilet I'm not so sure. Then again Bush, Ashcroft et al. seem to get away with ignoring large chunks of the US constitution, so maybe it makes no difference anyway.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Funny)
Of course it does, Cap'n Obvious!
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Duh [OT] (Score:4, Insightful)
This has to be the silliest objection yet! Meanings of words change and evolve over time. The dictionary merely records current usage.
Re:Of course, parent modded down... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the increased risk of birth defects, which imposes costs on society, and because some of those unions (e.g. parent/child) involve potentially exploitive relationships in which freedom of choice is not clear. Neither is there a body of data indicating that such relationships are likely to be stable.
Can I get married to two women? Why not?
This is obviously a separate issue, and a case for it would have to be made separately. One obvious objection is it depletes the supply of heterosexual mates for other men. In addition, a three-way union is likely to be less stable than a two way union simply because the stability of a two way union requires maintaining the relationship between only one pair of people, whereas a three-way union depends upon three such relationships.
"Can we five men and six ladies all get married in an eleven-way arrangement? Why not?
Again, it is a separate issue, and you would have to make a separate case for it. You would need to document that such relationships are likely to be reasonably stable. This seems unlikely, considering that in an 11 way union requires maintaining 55 pair-wise relationships.
"What about my dog? Can I marry my dog? We love each other?"
No, because (a) your dog is in a subservient relationship to you and therefore cannot be said to have free choice, and (b) your dog does not have the intellectual capacity to understand and make contracts.
None of these, of course, have any relationship whatsoever between marriages between two people of the same sex. There is ample data to establish that such relationships can be comparably stable to heterosexual relationships, and issues of power or consanguinity do not arise.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Right....
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Free communication includes the transmission of state secrets, disclosure of state security vulnerabilities etc. All societies need protection against that. By your reasoning, all societies should be destroyed and replaced as soon as possible.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
A mob boss sends an email to an underling telling him to kill someone. That good enough for you? The murder itself is not the entirety of the crime, because that kind of thinking would make powerful people immune to the consequences of any abuse of their power, as long as they didn't execute it themselves. So there's obviously something inherent to the communication that must be made illegal.
That doesn't mean I'm in favor of any censorship that claims to prevent other illegal acts, but it's a valid example of something that counters your claim.
Get off it. (Score:4, Insightful)
And every society has protections from free communication, the trivial example are libel and slander laws. Apparently you can't say anything you want. In Canada, you can be prosecuted for publishing material that, for example, denies that the holocaust ever occured, or material which otherwise promotes "hate crimes." In Britain there are laws that are Draconian by comparison to the US and Canada, both countries whose legal systems borrowed heavily from the British system, even to the point of citing precedent....
As for how causing one computer to send bits to another is a credible threat, you can't be that facile, can you? What if those bits are a collection of child pronography? I would say someone's rights and liberties were violated to create that content. Distribution of that content is continued abrogation of that person's rights. Or what about that stream of libelous and slanderous bits? Isn't that as reprehensible as the old fashioned ear to mouth or printed page varieties?
No society has ever allowed completely free communication. While the most successful societies have been those that allow the most freedom of communication and thought, none has been so foolish as to not have some proscribed communication. Such are necessary to protect society from the misinterpretations of simpletons who aren't sophisticated enough to understand that a right is only one so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another. The basis of libel and slander laws.
I think it less material that the libel is transmitted electronically than the fact that it is libel.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I could gather from a quick Google, both necrophilia and cannibalism are illegal in the U.K. (someone correct me if I'm wrong), in which case posting web sites advertising that you're doing it would be pretty dumb. The parallel for Americans would be something like hosting child pornography on your server for public consumption -- not only would you be doing something illegal, but you'd be publicizing about it at the same time.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Not in some jurisdictions in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't do any of the act described, he just talked about it... but it turns out to be illegal under Ohio law. Possession of child porn materials (which isn't just pictures) is against the law. A picture is worth a thousand words... but apparently enough words will get you into trouble as well (and I don't necessarily disagree). Not all speech is A-OK... no "fire!" in a crowded theatre... no talking about killing the president... and no talking about the torture/molestation/imprisonment of children.
The individual in question sounds like a sick guy, so as a parent myself, I can't say I'm sorry to see he's off the street.
Re:Duh (Score:4, Informative)
Quoting someone as stating that their problem started with an obsession with pornography is equally fallacious--why should we trust their self diagnosis? Should we not recognize this simply as when the individual first became aware of their problem? If we take into account the subconscious, the reasoning should become immediately clear.
Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Although the German cannibalism case has been dragged into this, the UK is currently experiencing a moral panic [wikipedia.org] because of the murder of Jane Longhurst, a teacher who was killed by a man who regularly visited extreme (rape/murder/snuff) sites. Some details here. [bbc.co.uk] There are more details accessible from this BBC News search. [bbc.co.uk]
Just wondering. (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of anything is going the way of the 8-track tape.
The terrorists seem to have won.
I'm not trying to flame, but what if online freedom includes child porn? Or people being murdered while being taped and then the movies played out online? If we outlaw these isn't that a "freedom of experssion" also?
I know, it's an extreme. But where do we draw that line? The line may be in different places for different people. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who's the one saying who's right and wrong? Why do tornados always hit moble homes? Why does the phone always ring when you're in the shower? I digress..
Re:Just wondering. (Score:5, Informative)
Yelling in a crowded theater: That is not an actual law, but a Supreme Court decision. Read it, and you'll see that the Justices were extremely reluctant to apply any limits to freedom of speech. The only reason that one stands is because it can cause actual physical damage to someone (that also stands behind the "hate speech" exception).
I don't see how "gross" speech can physically harm someone. And you will agree that this can be the beginning of a slippery slope (remember the "bonsai kittens" thing. There are lots of people who will try and silence all kinds of speeck "for the children").
Re:UKers don't have freedom of speech (Score:5, Informative)
Plus, the UK is protected by EU human rights laws, which expressly protect freedom of speech.
I guess the US media was too busy shouting "USA! USA! USA!" to broadcast that particular nugget.
Re:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that is PRECISELY what freedom of speech, as set out in the U.S. Constitution's first amendment was meant for.
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." --Voltaire
Re:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US (Score:4, Informative)
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org]
Which sounds to me like an endorsement of an internet free of censorship.
In practice, most countries violate at least one of these articles.
Re:Umm .. There is a World outside of the US (Score:5, Insightful)
Just wanted to answer this from a US/Libertarianish point of view.
Freedom of Expression/Speech only works if people can really say what they want to say. We do have some practical limits on speech, primarily of the sort that says "Say what you want to say, but don't actually harm anyone by saying it." Common examples of what's not ok include yelling "Fire!" in a movie house (people get hurt), libel/slander (actually damage someone with a lie), and physical threats. Some would argue that even those things shouldn't be illegal, but I think the line is drawn at a pretty appropriate place.
With those limits defined, if we start allowing any censorship based on a political/religious/philosophical/scientific basis, then no speech is truly protected. We start down a slippery slope where someone can ban or suppress speech because it doesn't agree with whatever the current political/religious climate is. Pretty soon, you're not allowed to publish an article criticizing the government because it's tantamount to terrorism! You're not allowed to criticize the clergy because you're trying to corrupt morals! You're not allowed to criticize the police because you're inciting a riot!
So, to preserve the freedom of speech, we have to preserve the freedom of all speech. Even speech which we find personally distasteful, immoral, or downright putrid. My personal opinion is that what the KKK has to say indicates that the whole lot of 'em are prime candidates for natural selection. And yet, to misquote Voltaire, I would fight to the death to defend their right to say it. Because in so doing, I defend my own right to say what I wish.
And if you think that you really have free speach in the US try having a discussion on paedophilia and see how far you get. Not that I advocate it, but the subject is so highly charged that you risk being pilloried just for mentioning it.
People have done so, and probably will again. They're likely to run up against some sort of local "obscenity" law, but if they fight it they will win. Larry Flynt was the perfect example of this when he fought to be allowed to publish his Hustler magazine. The Supreme Court came out with a ruling that even though the speech may be obscene by community standards, it is still protected speech.
Try to publish kiddie porn, though, and they'll haul you away. Because kiddie porn is causing harm to someone. The kids! (See paragraph about practical limits above.)
Re:cannibalism and necrophilia? (Score:5, Funny)